View Full Version : UK Trade...the facts
You work in a business of the scale of Nissan ??? A company with paid up capital of 606 billion Yen! Who do you work for?
I'm guessing that whoever it is, he isn't their Director of Global Strategy.
You work in a business of the scale of Nissan ??? A company with paid up capital of 606 billion Yen! Who do you work for?
FedEx.
FedEx.
Was that you who delivered my new electric toothbrush yesterday?
;)
(you walked right into that one!)
:eek:
Oldpinkman
28-10-2016, 09:52
I know a link to a Guardian report would be instantly dismissed by Martin, so this one is from the nice right wing Times
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/last-ditch-no-10-pledge-kept-nissan-in-britain-fbhg07fx0
There is no cash - just a promise to compensate and damage caused by Brexit. That opens a can of worms
“Nissan may be the first to get this treatment, but it seems inconceivable that it will be the last,” Jonathan Portes of the National Institute of Social and Economic Research wrote on the think tank’s blog. “The U.K. car industry is almost entirely foreign-owned, and it is hardly likely that other firms will not seek similar treatment.”
Portes also noted the announcement may complicate negotiations with the EU and then the World Trade Organization, both of which regulate “state aid.”
I know a link to a Guardian report would be instantly dismissed by Martin
I wrote an email to the reader's editor today complaining about the misleading headline in the article I linked to and which seemed to take up so much of this thread a few pages back. This was spurred on by another article that had a similar click-bait headline. As follows:
RE:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/27/world-on-track-to-lose-two-thirds-of-wild-animals-by-2020-major-report-warns
and
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/22/leading-banks-set-to-pull-out-of-brexit-uk
Dear Paul,
I don't often write emails to complain about anything, but twice in the past week I have noticed what I hope is not a new trend at The Guardian.
In the first example above "world on track to lose 2/3 of wild animals by 2020" turns out to mean from levels measured over 45 years ago.
In the second example "banks set to pull out of UK early next year" turns out to mean that they are expected to commence a partial relocation of some services.
In the first example the click bait headline suggests that in the next four years 2/3 of animals are going to become extinct, and in the second that the banks in question are moving lock stock and barrel.
In both cases a very possible reaction on reading the article is "oh well that's nowhere near as bad as I thought" thus enabling the reader to dismiss the serious claims made in the articles. Whether this can give ammunition to climate change deniers or LEAVE voters to argue how the left wing press is full of nonsense and scare tactics is a question that you will have to look at yourselves. At the very least it is click bait, and tiresome.
I do not know why the paper is beginning to use these tactics but it strikes me as poor and lazy journalism that I might expect from the Daily Mail but sadly am increasingly coming to expect from The Guardian.
Is it a high-level editorial instruction to the writers or/and sub-editors to make stories more punchy and dramatic? Either of these stories was dramatic enough with the facts as they were. If so it is a sorry day for the paper as you risk losing the respect of readers such as myself who have been with you for a very long time.
Yours,
etc
[In other news I thought that Sir Kier Starmer was very good on Question Time last night. I thought it was a shame that Ken Loach tried to have a go at him a couple of times for not supporting Corbyn when I think he has actually kept a pretty low profile in the whole affair. I also just found out he is a knight, and I quite like the idea of our next PM being called Sir Kier. He has a quite stilted way of talking and is not greatly charismatic, but he is clearly a man of great compassion and I think that made some very good points, and seemed to get a lot of applause.]
Good luck with your complaint to the Grauniad. I suspect you'll need it. :)
I regret that I watch Question Time very rarely now, although back in the (Sir Robin) day I never missed it. The stupidity of the panellists (of whatever political hue) and of the audience is just depressing and I could be forgiven for thinking that Dimbleby is going a little senile if it wasn't for the fact that he has pretty much always been like that.
Heard they were going to start getting the tv audience to vote by phone on the panellists... the loser being deselected
I never miss the Parliament Channel.
Prefer the Funkadelic channel myself.
Better with Dave. And closer to reality too
The stupidity of the panellists (of whatever political hue) and of the audience is just depressing
It's not like you to make sweeping statements.
Oldpinkman
28-10-2016, 12:45
I wrote an email to the reader's editor today complaining about the misleading headline in the article I linked to and which seemed to take up so much of this thread a few pages back. This was spurred on by another article that had a similar click-bait headline. As follows:
RE:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/27/world-on-track-to-lose-two-thirds-of-wild-animals-by-2020-major-report-warns
and
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/22/leading-banks-set-to-pull-out-of-brexit-uk
Dear Paul,
I don't often write emails to complain about anything, but twice in the past week I have noticed what I hope is not a new trend at The Guardian.
In the first example above "world on track to lose 2/3 of wild animals by 2020" turns out to mean from levels measured over 45 years ago.
In the second example "banks set to pull out of UK early next year" turns out to mean that they are expected to commence a partial relocation of some services.
In the first example the click bait headline suggests that in the next four years 2/3 of animals are going to become extinct, and in the second that the banks in question are moving lock stock and barrel.
In both cases a very possible reaction on reading the article is "oh well that's nowhere near as bad as I thought" thus enabling the reader to dismiss the serious claims made in the articles. Whether this can give ammunition to climate change deniers or LEAVE voters to argue how the left wing press is full of nonsense and scare tactics is a question that you will have to look at yourselves. At the very least it is click bait, and tiresome.
I do not know why the paper is beginning to use these tactics but it strikes me as poor and lazy journalism that I might expect from the Daily Mail but sadly am increasingly coming to expect from The Guardian.
Is it a high-level editorial instruction to the writers or/and sub-editors to make stories more punchy and dramatic? Either of these stories was dramatic enough with the facts as they were. If so it is a sorry day for the paper as you risk losing the respect of readers such as myself who have been with you for a very long time.
Yours,
etc
Do you not have a problem chewing food? ;)
It's not like you to make sweeping statements.
Maybe I missed the episodes when they had the smart people on?
Maybe I missed the episodes when they had the smart people on?
Well as I said, I thought Kier Starmer was very good last, and there was a good moment where an old boy with a deep Gloucestershire accent responded to Ken Loach talking about a 3rd runway being bad for the envorinment with "Will you be cycling to Cannes next time you go to pick up a Palme d'Or then?"
R
That does sound good. Although I quite like Ken Loach, met him a couple of years ago now. Don't know this Kier Starmer bloke at all.
That does sound good. Although I quite like Ken Loach, met him a couple of years ago now. Don't know this Kier Starmer bloke at all.
He is an MP only since the last election. Before that he was DPP and before that he was a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers. He helped the couple in the McLibel case, and also did a lot of work around the death penalty in the Carribbea, also did good work on UK troops abuses in Iraq. He wrote a very good legal opinion on the illegality of the Iraq war back in the day....
He is very good by all accounts. Just what we need in a politician as far as I can tell. A great intelligence allied with great compassion.
Re: Ken Loach - he was very good as well, saying the kinds of things you would expect. But that was a funny moment from the audience that was pretty much passed over really. Have you seen his film LOOKING FOR ERIC ? Its really good, starring Eric Cantona as a hallucination of himself. Apparently KL is a big football fan and Cantona is a huge Loach fan. When they first met they were apparently both completely tongue tied with awe in front of the other. Lovely idea.
:)
edit - quote from 2009 Guardian piece:
Vincent Maraval, one of the film's producers, tells me that the first time Loach and Cantona met it was awkward. "They were both very intimidated by each other. Very humble. They couldn't think of anything to say." Maraval says it was a good job he was around, otherwise they would have just sat in silence.
Well, yes, Loach says, of course he was overawed - he was a huge fan of Cantona's. "I mean, I'm not overimpressed by anybody in films because it's the business and we just work in it, but when it's somebody from outside who is very special in their own field, and particularly if it's a field you care about, then I think you are overwhel ..." He looks embarrassed. "Well, not overwhelmed, but you are impressed because, that level, it's something you can't approach - you can only stand back and admire really."
NB - 2nd edit
To bring this back on topic, the entire panel on Qt last night was REMAIN apart from one woman from the Taxpayers Alliance (Dia Chakravarty) who was clearly completely bonkers.
Aye the Cantona film is good. Unsurprisingly I don't agree with a lot of Loach's politics. His heart is in the right place but he has no idea of how to achieve the outcomes he wants and he's a bit stuck in the 1970's left/right paradigm which doesn't help. Bit like Corbyn really, no wonder he supports him.
Oldpinkman
30-10-2016, 11:21
As the CBI said - The EU trade deal with Canada would add £1.3bn to the economy
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-28/trudeau-and-tusk-to-sign-canada-eu-trade-pact-in-brussels-sunday
Just Japan and USA to add for effectively a full house.
Oldpinkman
30-10-2016, 11:21
As the CBI said - The EU trade deal with Canada would add £1.3bn to the economy
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-28/trudeau-and-tusk-to-sign-canada-eu-trade-pact-in-brussels-sunday
Just Japan and USA to add for effectively a full house.
Not the will of the people!
It's hard for me to disagree.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/10/24/brexit-is-not-the-will-of-the-british-people-it-never-has-been/
[emoji209] [emoji56] [emoji1] [emoji9] [emoji12] [emoji56] [emoji209]
As is all such polls, votes etc, it is all in the wording, and the margins ..... it should have been more like 60% needed for a start. 16 and 17 year olds, who will, lets be fair, carry more of the burden of the results and consequences of this, didnt get to vote. If the question had been expanded on to include a, say, do you want us to insist on a new deal in Europe, would i am sure changed the levels significantly..in fact pretty sure it would have been a landslide.
. If the question had been expanded on to include a, say, do you want us to insist on a new deal in Europe, would i am sure changed the levels significantly..in fact pretty sure it would have been a landslide.
Cameron went to the EU to ask for a better deal prior to the referendum and was effectively told to sod off. A decision they are no doubt now regretting.
Looks like the Nissan thing has panned out exactly as I predicted. What a surprise.
On another note, the trade deal with Canada is interesting, especially the freedom of movement clause.
Cameron tried to please everyone; the Brexiteers/potential UKIP voters by allowing a referendum; the Remainers by campaigning for a Remain outcome; the EU by accepting some minor concessions; all of his Ministers by allowing them to campaign for either Remain or Brexit. It all went Horribly Wrong because he had failed to square the press.
Arkless Electronics
31-10-2016, 14:41
The referendum was the worst political act since the failure of Thatchers parents to drown her at birth!
Oldpinkman
31-10-2016, 16:12
Cameron went to the EU to ask for a better deal prior to the referendum and was effectively told to sod off. A decision they are no doubt now regretting.
Looks like the Nissan thing has panned out exactly as I predicted. What a surprise.
On another note, the trade deal with Canada is interesting, especially the freedom of movement clause.
You predicted that the government would decline to comment about its deal with Nissan, and when it was forced out of them said they would ensure that car manufacturers could continue to trade as before? No tarrifs (easy - and easy to compensate financially) , no administrative or regulatory burden, freedom to recruit talented staff...
It doesn't look as simplistic as trying it on for a subsidy at all. It looks like a precedent, which if you follow it through to its logical conclusion scuppers Brexit. Not only would an extension of the principle to all UK business, not just foreign owned automotive manufacturers, require single market membership, but if compensation is paid instead the subsidies would effectively render trade deals impossible under WTO rules.
Where there has been no change is promising we can have our cake and eat it, with no likelihood the EU will grant it. Effectively the deal is just one more promise that the UK will secure no loss of market benefits, with an implication it will go ahead and "get out" Essentially still Boris Johnson's Telegraph article promises. But nothing has made it any more likely that can be delivered. The difference now is, should the government fail to deliver, it is going to have to pay compensation through the nose
On that basis is the only real question is does the government cut its losses and abandon Brexit before invoking article 50, or press the trigger and suffer the humiliation and cost of failure that is expected to result when it cant get out but stay in.
Be surprised if they do invoke it. Sure they say they will, but there is no time limit on this. Could wait years til eu either has change of direction or starts to turn a corner...good or bad one. Another country may come out of the proverbial closet too
You predicted that the government would decline to comment about its deal with Nissan, and when it was forced out of them said they would ensure that car manufacturers could continue to trade as before? No tarrifs (easy - and easy to compensate financially) , no administrative or regulatory burden, freedom to recruit talented staff...
It doesn't look as simplistic as trying it on for a subsidy at all. It looks like a precedent, which if you follow it through to its logical conclusion scuppers Brexit. Not only would an extension of the principle to all UK business, not just foreign owned automotive manufacturers, require single market membership, but if compensation is paid instead the subsidies would effectively render trade deals impossible under WTO rules.
Where there has been no change is promising we can have our cake and eat it, with no likelihood the EU will grant it. Effectively the deal is just one more promise that the UK will secure no loss of market benefits, with an implication it will go ahead and "get out" Essentially still Boris Johnson's Telegraph article promises. But nothing has made it any more likely that can be delivered. The difference now is, should the government fail to deliver, it is going to have to pay compensation through the nose
On that basis is the only real question is does the government cut its losses and abandon Brexit before invoking article 50, or press the trigger and suffer the humiliation and cost of failure that is expected to result when it cant get out but stay in.
I predicted it was nothing more than sabre-rattling and I was correct. As for the EU/WTO rules about grants and subsidies that system is a joke, nations have been gaming it for years and nobody is bothered in the slightest. Surprised you weren't aware of that.
No comment about the Canada deal and the freedom of movement aspect?
I predicted it was nothing more than sabre-rattling and I was correct.
Are you using an esoteric definition of "predict"?
Can you point to where you supposedly did this?
No comment about the Canada deal and the freedom of movement aspect?
If you could explain what you are talking about (perhaps providing a link), and also why you think it is so significant then you might get a better response, perhaps?
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Post 239
'Looking for a taxpayer handout, that's all. Nothing to see here, just follow the money. This was the point I was trying to make the other day. Any change or ruction is viewed an opportunity to get some leverage, or some free money from the government'
Canada trade deal https://www.yahoo.com/news/eu-canada-sign-trade-deal-belgian-drama-030401878.html
'Cheers and applause erupted as they inked a long-anticipated deal that will remove 99 percent of customs duties between the two sides, linking the single EU market of 28 nations with the world's 10th largest economy'
But no freedom of movement clause - Canadians will not have the automatic right to live and work in the EU, EU citizens will not have the automatic right to live and work in Canada.
Now why should any EU deal with the UK be any different? Because we are geographically close? because we are a bigger economy than Canada? And yet the free movement of labour is supposedly some sacrosanct EU principle that must accompany any free trade arrangement? Well, perhaps not.
But no freedom of movement clause -
Now why should any EU deal with the UK be any different?
Was there ever any expectation that there would be freedom of movement attached to this deal?
I don't think Canada was ever a member of the EU and so it could be argued that it was not negotiating from a similar position.
In nine years we may find out how the member states vote on whatever it is that we have managed to salvage from the wreckage of our seventy years of diplomacy.
Post 239
'Looking for a taxpayer handout, that's all. Nothing to see here, just follow the money. This was the point I was trying to make the other day. Any change or ruction is viewed an opportunity to get some leverage, or some free money from the government'
That's not really predicting anything, is it? I'm fairly certain that your interpretation of the facts in that post has already been convincingly argued to be unconvincing. I feel no great need to repeat the argument.
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
That's not really predicting anything, is it? I'm fairly certain that your interpretation of the facts in that post has already been convincingly argued to be unconvincing. I feel no great need to repeat the argument.
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Well yes, it is. The alternative prediction, that Nissan would be pulling out of the UK, is the one that was not only wrong, but in hindsight, actually risible. I suspect we will see a lot more of this, those trying to talk up the problems of Brexit (for what reasons you have to wonder) being confounded by actual events.
Well yes, it is. The alternative prediction, that Nissan would be pulling out of the UK, is the one that was not only wrong, but in hindsight, actually risible. I suspect we will see a lot more of this, those trying to talk up the problems of Brexit (for what reasons you have to wonder) being confounded by actual events.
You misunderstand. I meant that what you said was not a prediction, but rather simply your analysis of what was actually happening. You might well have said that it was "sabre rattling" but we cannot know whether it was or was not from the information that is available to us. Similarly your assertion that there was only one alternative "prediction" (that Nissan would pull out of the UK) is very bizarre, and I am also truly unable to see what hindsight can bring to this without being aware of any of the facts.
I suppose we have become accustomed to your arguments twisting reality to suit your viewpoint, but you seem to be saying that because Nissan have not (yet) packed up their factory and left that ERGO the LEAVE vote has not created a problem with Nissan et al.
However it would seem logical to say that if we do not know what assurances (financial and otherwise) have been promised to this company, and if we are therefore not able to predict which other companies might end up with similar concessions, and we are therefore unable to calculate the cost of those arrangements, then it seems a little bit previous, shall we say, to try and sweep this all under the mat and say that there has been no problem caused by the possibility of the UK leaving the EU. Would you not agree?
Unless perhaps you were party to the negotiations between the government and Nissan?
Please do share if you have the inside skinny.
:rolleyes::):reel:
No I don't have the inside info. I suspect if I did I would be unlikely to be permitted to share it in any case for the reasons you mention. However I doubt any specific deal was cut.
I see you are now taking issue with my calling it a 'prediction'. Fair enough. The Nissan situation was introduced here as a potential catastrophe and an example of what a poor idea Brexit was; my take was that it was a lot about nothing ('nothing to see here' being my exact words) and that is how it has panned out.
Okay, maybe not quite up there with Mystic Meg but then I'm not a professional at this sort of thing. It is just a question of being able to separate bullshit from reality. Some people are so desperate for Brexit to fail they will clutch at any straw, I predict this strategy is one that will fail on more occasions in the future, especially if it relies on quoting speculative news articles as proof of anything
Arkless Electronics
01-11-2016, 15:30
I don't know how you have the patience to debate the minutia of it Robert....Brexit was small minded, insular, "little Englanders", racists and bigots being foolishly given the chance to have their toxic agenda heard for once by jingo..... This is the only thing that matters IMHO. To go back to the yob argument it was like giving the inhabitants of the borough of Millwall a referendum on future policy towards the black and gay minorities, holding it on a match day and then upholding the results even though you know the people voting were racist, homophobic, uneducated, inbreds!
Unfortunately peoples greed, selfishness, intolerance and insularity were given a chance to rear their ugly heads that day... This of course raises the question of how a plebiscite in a "democracy" should be run... and of the nature of democracy itself. Someone may well say "yeah I'm a fecking racist and I hate puffs and my vote counts the same as yours cos it's a fecking democracy innit in-ger-land in-ger-land..."... now personally I would have such people "dealt with" :eyebrows: but unfortunately at the moment the views of such a sub human cretin hold as much sway as those of a reasonable, well adjusted and educated person:eek: People of the above type, who normally wouldn't even bother to vote, came out in droves to vote for Brexit, as could be predicted, and this is why there should have been no referendum. It is very true that "not all brexiters were racist but all racists were brexiters" and for this reason the result should be ignored... I'll bet that if just the people who voted out for purely racist reasons had their votes discounted then it would have been about 65:35 in favour of remain;) I mean FFS one can pretty much predict the way a region or town voted by looking at general levels of education and extant racism in that area!
Good rant. As far as I'm concerned I'm not really bothered that some of them made the right decision for the wrong reasons. Also think that you vastly over-estimate the number of people who voted leave because they are white supremacists. If you also count as racists all the people like me who think that increasing the population of these islands by 500,000 a year, every year (whatever the 'race' of the newcomers) is complete insanity then your 65:35 figure becomes more realistic.
Arkless Electronics
01-11-2016, 16:32
No they made the wrong decision for the wrong reasons... but you wouldn't expect me to say anything otherwise. I'm also not just including "white supremacists" but all xenophobes. If you look at the footage of a large part of the Question Time audience (in Essex I believe....'nough said) actually booing a women just for being Polish then you will see they look like the failures from a lobotomy clinic...
I strongly agree that the population is far too high but my solution to this is an international one child only law, NOT excluding certain people from having a fair slice of the cake so that certain others can have more than their fair share. This of course is the old left V right debate encapsulated.
Whether it's over-population, global warming, pollution, famine etc it's all caused by capitalism at the end of the day!
Why is over-population not tackled? Cos the capitalists want a never ending supply of cheap labour and a never ending expansion of the customer base of course!
The world has finite resources and the never ending expansion of the population and of capitalism means there is more and more competition for these resources. This guarantees the eventual destruction of the planet so long as mankind keeps pursuing greater profits, wealth etc... Societies to blame... and we'll be charging them 'n all (to quote python)
Not as simple as having a one child rule. They had that in China until recently, and since the majority of people wanted a boy, girls were killed at birth and before birth. Now they have the problem that there is no longer a 50/50 male female split, there are a lot more males than females.
The law of unintended consequences.
There is also the argument that no-one has the right to tell anyone how many children they can have. As someone who believes that the freedom of the individual should be curtailed as little as practically possible, I have to agree with that.
In any case I don't think that globally there is an overpopulation problem. Even the UK could theoretically take more people but not at the rate of half a million a year. That's a city the size of Sheffield every 12 months. No matter how much you spend on infrastructure you can't keep up with that rate of increase.
The EU didn't give a monkey's about this, they made it quite clear they felt it was not their problem, and now it has come back to bite them on the arse.
No I don't have the inside info. I suspect if I did I would be unlikely to be permitted to share it in any case for the reasons you mention. However I doubt any specific deal was cut.
But you do not know the facts and so you cannot just declare that it as a non-story. Well of course you can declare all you want and I am sure you will continue to but shouting at the sky does not stop it being blue.
I see you are now taking issue with my calling it a 'prediction'. Fair enough. The Nissan situation was introduced here as a potential catastrophe and an example of what a poor idea Brexit was; my take was that it was a lot about nothing ('nothing to see here' being my exact words) and that is how it has panned out.
Well again, you do not know how it panned out.
The Nissan situation, if I recall correctly, was introduced here because I had linked [post #225] to a question raised in Parliament about whether Japanese Businesses had expressed concerns similar to those expressed by the Japanese government in their unprecedented warning to the UK over the implications of Brexit. the answer from a minister was that yes, Japanese businesses and investors had indeed raised the same concerns in meetings with the government.
You (Martin) then completely missed the point that this was Japanese businesses speaking and said that it was probably just hot air and that the Japanese government did not run Japanese businesses and it was just a bluff. At this point, to demonstrate that it was not simply "hot air" Richard quoted from a news article about Nissan which mentioned that they had had a meeting with Theresa May seeking reassurance about their concerns.
So it wasn't introduced as an example of a "potential catastrophe" and to show what a poor idea Brexit is. It was introduced to demonstrate that what you were saying was not reflecting reality. The parliamentary question was introduced here explicitly because I thought that it was going to be difficult for you to simply dismiss a parliamentary source as being untrustworthy due to cant, or bias, or financial gain, etc. It was to demonstrate that there are legitimate concerns over our possible exit from the EU, in that case about confidence in the stability of our economy and political situation as perceived by foreign investors.
I don't know how you have the patience to debate the minutia of it Robert....
I don't always, but I believe that it is important to hold people to account for what they say, to be precise, and to at least attempt to show up the inconsistencies and fallacies in "arguments", otherwise all that will remain will be the opinion of whoever can shout the loudest, like some character from a sketch in The Fast Show.
The sky remains blue.
Arkless Electronics
01-11-2016, 17:21
Not as simple as having a one child rule. They had that in China until recently, and since the majority of people wanted a boy, girls were killed at birth and before birth. Now they have the problem that there is no longer a 50/50 male female split, there are a lot more males than females.
The law of unintended consequences.
There is also the argument that no-one has the right to tell anyone how many children they can have. As someone who believes that the freedom of the individual should be curtailed as little as practically possible, I have to agree with that.
In any case I don't think that globally there is an overpopulation problem. Even the UK could theoretically take more people but not at the rate of half a million a year. That's a city the size of Sheffield every 12 months. No matter how much you spend on infrastructure you can't keep up with that rate of increase.
The EU didn't give a monkey's about this, they made it quite clear they felt it was not their problem, and now it has come back to bite them on the arse.
As you would expect I strongly disagree with everything you say. Laws can and should be used to limit over population and people should not be given the choice to abort girls. I believe there is little more selfish than having children for your own gratification (and apparently "fulfilment") when over population is the single biggest problem the world faces. As I say the over population is largely deliberate and to give the wealthiest more poor people to exploit.
I'm still hoping some legal loophole will prevent brexit from ever happening!
I suppose you like Trump as well?
Infinitely Baffled
01-11-2016, 17:46
Originally posted by Macca:
Not as simple as having a one child rule. They had that in China until recently, and since the majority of people wanted a boy, girls were killed at birth and before birth. Now they have the problem that there is no longer a 50/50 male female split, there are a lot more males than females."
Yes, there were problems, but that's not a reason to declare a one or two child policy off limits. If there are problems, you work them. You just need to implement it better. Better, policy, better checks, better safeguards: the Rule of Law, for heaven's sake. We are supposed to be good at that. When the first bridge collapsed, did people say "Oh well, that's that. We won't be building any more bridges then"? Of course not - you just have to work out how to get it right.
Originally posted by Macca:
"There is also the argument that no-one has the right to tell anyone how many children they can have."
Oh, yes we can! What does it mean to live in a society? To live in an organized and thought-out scheme of successful co-existence? One of the things it means is that you surrender some personal liberties in exchange for other freedoms and benefits. We, as a society, absolutely do have the right to determine what that trade-off of liberties and benefits looks like. We are in charge here - by "we" I mean mankind. Not God, not Nature, not some flying spaghetti monster. It is up to us, and nobody else, to ensure that life-on-earth works successfully. We get to make the rules. And if it becomes clear that one of those rules needs to be to limit the birth rate to survive, then that's what we need to do. This idea that people have a "natural right" to do things like breed to their heart's content is dangerous. In matters that affect the sustainability of civilization people have only the rights that we, as a society, agree that they should enjoy. At the moment, society as a whole appears content not to impose rules in the area of family size. But there is absolutely no reason why that should be a no-go area if society, through its elected governments, so determines. If government believes it is justified in setting rules around what substances people can put into their bodies, and this is done in the name of preserving a cohesive and functioning society for the rest of us, then I don't see why it should not be permissible to regulate how many offspring they are allowed to produce - for exactly the same reasons. Forget "natural rights" - as I said, "we are in charge here".
IB
There is no over breeding in the western world. The problem countries or area is mainly in Africa, china, india etc. Dont think we have any rights to stop them breeding. If they have too many, what you gonna do. Sterilise them. Kill the kids?
Its not an easy subject but its gotta be up to those countries to both improve their gdp and distribute it fairly, and educate folk with sufficient health care that they dont need 7 kids each.
Trouble with this is many of these countries, especially the problem African ones are mostly controlled by people who dont give a damn.
Arkless Electronics
01-11-2016, 18:15
Originally posted by Macca:
Not as simple as having a one child rule. They had that in China until recently, and since the majority of people wanted a boy, girls were killed at birth and before birth. Now they have the problem that there is no longer a 50/50 male female split, there are a lot more males than females."
Yes, there were problems, but that's not a reason to declare a one or two child policy off limits. If there are problems, you work them. You just need to implement it better. Better, policy, better checks, better safeguards: the Rule of Law, for heaven's sake. We are supposed to be good at that. When the first bridge collapsed, did people say "Oh well, that's that. We won't be building any more bridges then"? Of course not - you just have to work out how to get it right.
Originally posted by Macca:
"There is also the argument that no-one has the right to tell anyone how many children they can have."
Oh, yes we can! What does it mean to live in a society? To live in an organized and thought-out scheme of successful co-existence? One of the things it means is that you surrender some personal liberties in exchange for other freedoms and benefits. We, as a society, absolutely do have the right to determine what that trade-off of liberties and benefits looks like. We are in charge here - by "we" I mean mankind. Not God, not Nature, not some flying spaghetti monster. It is up to us, and nobody else, to ensure that life-on-earth works successfully. We get to make the rules. And if it becomes clear that one of those rules needs to be to limit the birth rate to survive, then that's what we need to do. This idea that people have a "natural right" to do things like breed to their heart's content is dangerous. In matters that affect the sustainability of civilization people have only the rights that we, as a society, agree that they should enjoy. At the moment, society as a whole appears content not to impose rules in the area of family size. But there is absolutely no reason why that should be a no-go area if society, through its elected governments, so determines. If government believes it is justified in setting rules around what substances people can put into their bodies, and this is done in the name of preserving a cohesive and functioning society for the rest of us, then I don't see why it should not be permissible to regulate how many offspring they are allowed to produce - for exactly the same reasons. Forget "natural rights" - as I said, "we are in charge here".
IB
:exactly:
As you would expect I strongly disagree with everything you say. Laws can and should be used to limit over population and people should not be given the choice to abort girls. I believe there is little more selfish than having children for your own gratification (and apparently "fulfilment") when over population is the single biggest problem the world faces. As I say the over population is largely deliberate and to give the wealthiest more poor people to exploit.
I'm still hoping some legal loophole will prevent brexit from ever happening!
I suppose you like Trump as well?
No, I've got no time for Trump. I don't see Brexit and Trump as connected at all.
I don't think a legal loophole will stop Brexit, however until Art 50 is invoked it still might never happen so I wouldn't give up hope yet. Once they invoke that is it, it will be certain.
BTW they didn't have permission to abort girls in China, they just did it anyway and kept quiet about it.
Originally posted by Macca:
Not as simple as having a one child rule. They had that in China until recently, and since the majority of people wanted a boy, girls were killed at birth and before birth. Now they have the problem that there is no longer a 50/50 male female split, there are a lot more males than females."
Yes, there were problems, but that's not a reason to declare a one or two child policy off limits. If there are problems, you work them. You just need to implement it better. Better, policy, better checks, better safeguards: the Rule of Law, for heaven's sake. We are supposed to be good at that. When the first bridge collapsed, did people say "Oh well, that's that. We won't be building any more bridges then"? Of course not - you just have to work out how to get it right.
Originally posted by Macca:
"There is also the argument that no-one has the right to tell anyone how many children they can have."
Oh, yes we can! What does it mean to live in a society? To live in an organized and thought-out scheme of successful co-existence? One of the things it means is that you surrender some personal liberties in exchange for other freedoms and benefits. We, as a society, absolutely do have the right to determine what that trade-off of liberties and benefits looks like. We are in charge here - by "we" I mean mankind. Not God, not Nature, not some flying spaghetti monster. It is up to us, and nobody else, to ensure that life-on-earth works successfully. We get to make the rules. And if it becomes clear that one of those rules needs to be to limit the birth rate to survive, then that's what we need to do. This idea that people have a "natural right" to do things like breed to their heart's content is dangerous. In matters that affect the sustainability of civilization people have only the rights that we, as a society, agree that they should enjoy. At the moment, society as a whole appears content not to impose rules in the area of family size. But there is absolutely no reason why that should be a no-go area if society, through its elected governments, so determines. If government believes it is justified in setting rules around what substances people can put into their bodies, and this is done in the name of preserving a cohesive and functioning society for the rest of us, then I don't see why it should not be permissible to regulate how many offspring they are allowed to produce - for exactly the same reasons. Forget "natural rights" - as I said, "we are in charge here".
IB
I agree with you to an extent. We have to have some limitations on personal liberty to make society function, I am just of the opinion that it should always be a priority to restrain personal liberty as little as is practical. One thing history teaches us is that trying to change things with legislation rarely works. Changing people's opinions, and what is socially acceptable is far more effective. Until the 1990s the birth rate was below the death rate in a lot of the west, including the UK. Combined with migration the pop was actually shrinking in the UK. So a better solution to over-population is education and changing social mores as opposed to passing laws.
Arkless Electronics
01-11-2016, 18:49
There is no over breeding in the western world. The problem countries or area is mainly in Africa, china, india etc. Dont think we have any rights to stop them breeding. If they have too many, what you gonna do. Sterilise them. Kill the kids?
Its not an easy subject but its gotta be up to those countries to both improve their gdp and distribute it fairly, and educate folk with sufficient health care that they dont need 7 kids each.
Trouble with this is many of these countries, especially the problem African ones are mostly controlled by people who dont give a damn.
Oh yeah? I suppose the more than doubling of the UK population in the last hundred years is all down to immigration then? There is vast over breeding in the western world and even more in the 3rd world!
As far as it being the fault of "those countries" I largely disagree on that one too... It's largely down to "the great satan" USA, and all it's little demons in the rest of the western world, keeping less developed countries down so they can't be competitors.
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever" Orwell-1984.
They would watch millions starve and do nothing... lest they thrive and come demanding their fair share of "the cake" and Americans have to make do with only one car each and can't afford to over eat at McKFC quite so often.
This situation is actual USA policy!!! Of course it isn't put quite like that but that's exactly what it means. It disgusts me to the point of being somewhere between speechless and grasping for suitable words to express my hatred and revulsion at this!
The more I learn about mankind the more I think that if there actually were a god/creator then he/she/it is one sick bastard!!!
Arkless Electronics
01-11-2016, 19:08
No, I've got no time for Trump. I don't see Brexit and Trump as connected at all.
I don't think a legal loophole will stop Brexit, however until Art 50 is invoked it still might never happen so I wouldn't give up hope yet. Once they invoke that is it, it will be certain.
BTW they didn't have permission to abort girls in China, they just did it anyway and kept quiet about it.
I'm glad to hear it!!! However there is a massive link between brexit and trump! Are you blind man? Why do you think the slime ball is using "we're gonna do a brexit" as a slogan? Why do you think farage went over to support trump at a rally?
Brexit, and to a larger extent trump and ukip, are all part of the evil far right popularism which needs stamping out at any cost!. It's one of the few things I feel so strongly about that I would "sign up" to war over!
Infinitely Baffled
01-11-2016, 19:59
Its not an easy subject but its gotta be up to those countries to both improve their gdp and distribute it fairly, and educate folk with sufficient health care that they dont need 7 kids each.
Trouble with this is many of these countries, especially the problem African ones are mostly controlled by people who dont give a damn.
I don't disagree with this. But it is unhelpful to make it an eastern hemisphere problem only. When there are finally too many humans crawling the face of the Earth for the available resources to sustain, we are ALL up the creek. We will all be profoundly affected by the fallout and so we all have a stake in controlling the problem before it gets out of hand. So yes, whilst I can agree that, numerically speaking, there is more over-breeding in economically undeveloped (or partially developed) countries than there is here for example, I was careful to couch my propositions in global terms.
By the way, I tend to feel that whilst having too-large families is something that tends to happen in the countries you mention because of economic need and lack of education, in the west it is more likely to be the resut of an egocentric, arrogant disregard of society's needs by comparatively affluent people who put their own gratification and "lifestyle" ambitions first. Very big difference!
IB.
I don't disagree with this. But it is unhelpful to make it an eastern hemisphere problem only. When there are finally too many humans crawling the face of the Earth for the available resources to sustain, we are ALL up the creek. .
That's unlikely to happen for various reasons. Birth rates tend to drop sharply once societies industrialize and westernize. Worrying about overpopulation is a bit negative. 'If there are less of usl we all get a bigger slice of the cake.' Better just to bake a bigger cake.
Arkless Electronics
01-11-2016, 20:26
That's unlikely to happen for various reasons. Birth rates tend to drop sharply once societies industrialize and westernize. Worrying about overpopulation is a bit negative. 'If there ae less of us will we all get a bigger slice of the cake.' Better just to bake a bigger cake.
If only it was'nt down to those pesky finite resources eh....
fi·nite (fī′nīt′)
adj.
a. Having bounds; limited: a finite list of choices; our finite fossil fuel reserves.
b. Existing, persisting, or enduring for a limited time only; impermanent.
Regardless of how much you cut down the population you are still eventually going to run out of anything that is finite by definition. What then? Outcome is the same either way, does it matter how many generations the finite resources last for? If so, why?
Infinitely Baffled
01-11-2016, 20:33
Worrying about overpopulation is a bit negative. 'If there are less of usl we all get a bigger slice of the cake.' Better just to bake a bigger cake.
This is the central tenet of consumer capitalism. Create ever more demand, consuming ever more resources, in order to produce ever greater returns for investors. In other words a bigger and bigger bubble. I don't believe it is sustainable long term, Martin, because one of those three things - namely resources - is finite.
IB.
But we have to run out whatever happens. Does it matter if it is in a thousand years or ten thousand years? People adapt, societies adapt, and it happens naturally. Tying to force things along makes things worse, not better. It also leads to unintended outcomes, like Brexit and Trump (okay so there is a connection, I concede ;) ).
Infinitely Baffled
01-11-2016, 20:49
But we have to run out whatever happens. Does it matter if it is in a thousand years or ten thousand years? People adapt, societies adapt, and it happens naturally.
I love the insouciance!
IB
I love the insouciance!
IB
LOL - not really, I think humans vastly over-estimate their capabilities to do anything. As an intellectual problem it is interesting and looks solvable, when it comes to enacting the solution in reality things usually go tits up. I'd prefer we concerned ourselves with things actually under our control rather than thinking about the survival of the species generations from now. And it isn't even a question of survival, we will still carry on without the fossil fuels, it will just be different, not better, not worse.
Dear God, please don't let's get into that again! If anyone wants to start a thread on overpopulation and finite resources then please do. This thread is about UK trade and the EU referendum.
I don't think anyone needs or wants Martin to start rehashing his opinions on geophysics.
[emoji27] [emoji33] [emoji61] [emoji107] [emoji89]
More pressure on the government....
In a new report, Moody’s says that it would slash Britain’s credit rating if UK companies lose ‘core access’ to the single market.
It believes the terms at which Britain can trade with the rest of Europe after Brexit are crucial to the country’s long-term prosperity.
Kathrin Muehlbronner, Senior Vice President at Moody’s Investors Service, says :
“We would downgrade the UK’s sovereign rating if the outcome of the negotiations with the EU was a loss of access to the Single Market as this would materially damage its medium-term growth prospects.
A second trigger for a downgrade would be if we were to conclude that the credibility of the UK’s fiscal policy had been tarnished as a result of Brexit or other reasons.”
I don't think anyone needs or wants Martin to start rehashing his opinions on geophysics.
[emoji27] [emoji33] [emoji61] [emoji107] [emoji89]
Actually I am qualified in geophysics. Although it was along time ago...
Actually I am qualified in geophysics. Although it was along time ago...
https://www.theflagshop.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/thumbnail/465x/17f82f742ffe127f42dca9de82fb58b1/w/h/white-flag-std_1.jpg
Actually I am qualified in geophysics. Although it was along time ago...
In a galaxy far away ....
Arkless Electronics
02-11-2016, 17:00
Dear God, please don't let's get into that again! If anyone wants to start a thread on overpopulation and finite resources then please do. This thread is about UK trade and the EU referendum.
I don't think anyone needs or wants Martin to start rehashing his opinions on geophysics.
[emoji27] [emoji33] [emoji61] [emoji107] [emoji89]
I may just start one on the moral bankruptcy of right of centre politics... that should tie in nicely with overpopulation and finite resources...
As far as the EU referendum goes well, guess what? Yes it's the immorality of it appealing to bigots, racists, ultra-nationalists and neo-nazi's and the fact that BNP, UKIP, NF and other scum (one doesn't need to be a card carrying member of any of these to qualify as a scum bag bigot) have been given the opportunity to get their own way and drag our country a bit closer to their poisonous illiberal mindset that really pulls my chain...
In Europe people have a very different understanding of EU membership and what it means, which was forged by the experience of both WW2 and the cold war. As we were never invaded and were spared the horror of a Mosley regime I guess the UK population doesn't see the EU as being a guarantee of peace and egalitarianism in quite the same way...
The effect on trade is important too of course, and I sincerely hope many "Alf Garnets" that voted out loose their own jobs because of it, but, it's what brexit says about the increasingly inhuman, inhumane, selfish, "I'm alright Jack, screw you" nature of our country that really bothers me....
Of course it is not just brexit that is to blame. Brexit is a symptom of the disease rather than the cause. Ten years or so ago the very idea of brexit would have been unthinkable!
The unspeakable evil which was Thatcher was of course the start of the rot, but of late there has been a further sea change in this country... In the Zeitgeist.... I'm not certain of the when and how but the 2008 financial collapse looks like the main suspect to me.
The Tory tabloid press must take a huge amount of the blame of course for a virtual witch-hunt against the poor (deserving and undeserving eh?), the unemployed, the disabled, Muslims, foreigners, immigrants and anyone who "looks a bit funny".
In effect it is no different from the KKK persecution of blacks.... this time though there has been a deliberate (and unfortunately successful) attempt to get the "white, indigenousness, own home, two BMW's and a good job" "majority" to look down on, ignore the plight of, abandon any sympathy for and even persecute anyone different to themselves.... to inculcate a sense of fear and hatred against anyone who is seen as "beneath them" and maybe "coming to get a slice of their huge 20Lb butter dripping almond and fruit overloaded cake". Them and us.
This is no longer the caring and sharing country I grew up in. The country that created the NHS and welfare state that were a lifeline for everyone, not just the privileged.... Although brexit is more a symptom than cause of all this, it is a hugely visible neon beacon of the successful spread of the virus which Thatcher unleashed.
Or, Brexit is symptom of people's increasing disenchantment with the political process. They see government as legalised theft, a higher echelon lining their pockets from everyone else's hard work whilst failing to fix the problems and indeed, creating more. The EU is just another additional layer of exactly the same thing. I appreciate it is a lot easier to blame it on Thatcher and racists, especially if that fits your existing world-view, but Thatcher went 26 years ago this month. (I remember the day well, I dropped a tab, although I'd planned to do that anyway).
Talk to people in other European countries and you get the same mix of views, they are not all in favour of the EU, hence the need to have repeated referendums re the Euro (and of course the abandoned EU Constitution that was even voted down in France). The Irish, Portugese, Italian and Greek economies have been wrecked by the EU/Euro. Not so many happy EU campers in those places either. No government in Europe would dare to give its people a vote on remaining in it because they know what the result would be.
NATO and nukes have kept the peace, not the EU. And I take issue with your suggestion that the good job /two BMW are a majority. If they were then vote would have been to stay. I suspect almost everyone who falls into that category voted remain. It is the downtrodden working classes who voted us out. It was a protest vote, a chance to stick it to the establishment, the only chance most of us have ever had to make a vote that counted, a verdict on the Establishment's performance so far, and it was a big thumbs down.
Infinitely Baffled
02-11-2016, 19:51
It was a protest vote, a chance to stick it to the establishment, the only chance most of us have ever had to make a vote that counted, a verdict on the Establishment's performance so far, and it was a big thumbs down.
If this is true it is beyond pathetic! How brainless do you have to be to vote against a supposedly establishment-sponsored cause just to "stick it to 'em" - without any consideration of the wider implications of your vote? A great advert for democracy!
IB
Arkless Electronics
02-11-2016, 19:55
As you would expect I think pretty much the exact opposite on pretty much everything you say. I also found it (especially reading between the lines) as offensive as I'm sure you found my own paean of prose:D As to "I dropped a tab, although I'd planned to do that anyway"... eh?
I'll guess you regard government as legalised theft because you feel you shouldn't have to pay any taxes which then are spent on helping those less fortunate than yourself....
One of the most shockingly hilarious things said by brexiters, and even more shockingly so by trump supporters, is that it is anti establishment and the elite :rfl:
Yeah right... a multimillionaire far right businessman is not part of the elite, the establishment... And it is EU laws that limit some of the worst excesses of this cabal in our own country!
Thatcher was the worst thing to happen to our country since WW2, with brexit probably second. She may have gone from government 26 years ago but she changed our country obscenely for the worse and her acolytes have maintained the flow of poison into the veins of the nation which she started.
"There is no society"... Was her most evil mantra. In other words grab anything and everything you can get and fuck those less able to prosper than yourself! "love thy neighbour"? nah stab him in the back and see if you can grab his share as well!
Combine this with the fact that I was once a so-called "new age traveller"... who personally suffered at the hands of her storm troopers... and that I'm from the North East which was decimated and communities and industries destroyed by her policies, and you may understand why I would have taken great pleasure in strangling her with my own hands... yes literally... if I could have got to the front of the queue...
That so many working class people in the North voted for brexit shows merely that the Tory press and the poison of UKIP were successful in stirring up racial, economic and religious hatred purely for their own gain, and by brainwashing those who are in fact their victims, the victims of Thatchers legacy. It was in fact a most successful campaign to get "turkeys to vote for xmas"!!
Whilst a few of Corbyn's policy are erm.. a bit "out there" (unilateral disarmament and sending out unarmed submarines for example!) he is the best chance for a genuinely anti establishment, anti elite government, which would likely reverse much of Thatchers wrongs, which we have seen in a generation or more. If the GDP goes down, and we slip from 5th to 8th most wealthy nation, then so long as it is the elites and big corporations that really suffer whilst those at the bottom of the pile see a big improvement to their lot in life... RESULT!
“A Nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but it's lowest ones” Nelson Mandela
That's the same Nelson Mandela who was regarded as a terrorist by Thatcher BTW.... That's Thatcher who was bestest pals with a military dictator and war criminal Pinochet...
I'll guess you regard government as legalised theft because you feel you shouldn't have to pay any taxes which then are spent on helping those less fortunate than yourself....
..
No, you have me completely wrong, although I see why. I'm fine with paying taxes, what I object to is the way it is spent, incompetently and corruptly. We could pay less and get a lot more for our money. And no, I didn't find anything you wrote offensive at all. As I've said to you before we both want the same outcomes for the 'less fortunate' and for much else as well, we just disagree about the best way to go about it.
Arkless Electronics
02-11-2016, 20:17
No, you have me completely wrong, although I see why. I'm fine with paying taxes, what I object to is the way it is spent, incompetently and corruptly. We could pay less and get a lot more for our money. And no, I didn't find anything you wrote offensive at all. As I've said to you before we both want the same outcomes for the 'less fortunate' and for much else as well, we just disagree about the best way to go about it.
Well I'm glad to hear it Martin.
Oh and just cos I have such opposite views to you does not mean I wouldn't have good chin wag about hi fi with you over a few beers:) Probably best we stayed away from politics though:eek:
Arkless Electronics
02-11-2016, 20:48
Highly off topic but in the wake of the refusal to hold an inquiry into Orgreave, the discussion about Thatcher and my mentioning having been on the receiving end of her storm troopers... some may find these documentaries interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgCxUgaFWw4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwkX7D6PmcQ
Both were before my involvement and I only did it for a year... for reasons that may be obvious after watching these! The first one is almost exactly a re-run of days I experienced myself, whilst the next, about the battle of the beanfield, shows the true extent of Thatchers evil and is much more shocking than Orgreave.
Well I'm glad to hear it Martin.
Oh and just cos I have such opposite views to you does not mean I wouldn't have good chin wag about hi fi with you over a few beers:) Probably best we stayed away from politics though:eek:
We already did the former at NEBO...and I am sure we could discuss politics without taking it to the car park ;)
Arkless Electronics
02-11-2016, 21:29
We already did the former at NEBO...and I am sure we could discuss politics without taking it to the car park ;)
I hadn't forgotten and yes indeedy to the latter:)
Good job too you're a big lad :)
I'm not into the emotional side of politics. Or the ideological side, except for the principle that Government should be by consent, not tyranny. On the practical side my views are quite complex. That's what turns me off about politics - it is a complex subject in itself, and is inextricably intertwined with economics and human psychology, and yet it is reduced to some tribal us versus them activity. Complex problems require complex solutions, but nobody wants to admit it.
That's what turns me off about politics - it is a complex subject in itself, and is inextricably intertwined with economics and human psychology, and yet it is reduced to some tribal us versus them activity. Complex problems require complex solutions, but nobody wants to admit it.
I think lots of people know it and admit it. The trouble is that vested interests prefer a simple narrative that will a) keep them wealthy, and b) protect them from scrutiny. There are plenty of complicit media outlets in cahoots with these vested interests who are ready and willing to help keep the narrative simple. What's more, politicians need to keep these vested interests and media outlets sweet, so they too steer clear of subtlety and nuance in case they tread on someone's toes.
Speaking of finite resources, one good thing about leaving the EU at least is that we would be able to take back control of our waters for the benefit of British fishermen, as is explained in this article:
https://infacts.org/better-deal-uk-fishermen-will-hard-catch/
They want a war, we will give em a war ;)
The High Court has just this minute ruled that the government does not have the right to trigger Article 50 without a vote in parliament.
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
pgarrish
03-11-2016, 10:09
More pressure on the government....
In a new report, Moody’s says that it would slash Britain’s credit rating if UK companies lose ‘core access’ to the single market.
It believes the terms at which Britain can trade with the rest of Europe after Brexit are crucial to the country’s long-term prosperity.
Kathrin Muehlbronner, Senior Vice President at Moody’s Investors Service, says :
“We would downgrade the UK’s sovereign rating if the outcome of the negotiations with the EU was a loss of access to the Single Market as this would materially damage its medium-term growth prospects.
A second trigger for a downgrade would be if we were to conclude that the credibility of the UK’s fiscal policy had been tarnished as a result of Brexit or other reasons.”
If you want to start finding the underlying causes of most of the problems in the world at the moment, start here... An unelected, un-regulated, private corporation that can 'down-grade' an entire country causing interest rates to increase, exchange rates to reduce and all manner of economic problems. These were the same people rubber stamping all those lovely sub-prime mortgages as AAA not so long ago. Brexit and Trump are in no small part a reaction to people like this. We all KNOW we are being royally screwed by the financial industry and a very few indecently rich people, not (just) the governments who do their bidding (and under Cameron and crew that pupeteering was some of the most blatant I have ever seen), but since we cannot vote them out of power, people are increasingly doing what they think those people want. It was economists who made the biggest cry for the EU - the same economists who missed 2008 totally, the same economists who pumped trillions into QE to make sure the banks and investors were OK whilst saddling the rest of us with debts beyond comprehension. I didn't vote for Brexit, but only because I saw the EU as a brake on US labour laws, I'm not sure what the EU HAS actually done for us vs what we contribute as nothing in the press can be trusted - Murdoch was supporting both sides, the BBC are nowhere near impartial and the internet is what it is, a free-for-all. We were asked a stupid question, by a scared career politician who took his ball away when we refused to give him the answer he wanted. What a monumental FU it has all been. For me, the financial industry is where things needs to change, but they have too much influence for that to happen.
I agree wholeheartedly re the ratings agencies. It's astonishing that they were not prosecuted or drummed out of business after 2008.
Our vote to "take back control" doesn't seem to be gaining us much more control over anything though!
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
The High Court has just this minute ruled that the government does not have the right to trigger Article 50 without a vote in parliament.
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Govt inspired as well as "those institutions" so mz May can say, well i tried, lol.
I wont say I told you so,.... ach, I told ya so :eyebrows:
I agree wholeheartedly re the ratings agencies. It's astonishing that they were not prosecuted or drummed out of business after 2008.
Our vote to "take back control" doesn't seem to be gaining us much more control over anything though!
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
It's a long road and we haven't even started on it until/if Art 50 happens.
Really we already had a lot more control than the Eurozone countries, because we didn't abandon our own currency for the one size fits all Euro.
I also agree with Paul's post, the credit agencies are corrupt IMO. A better system is needed. And we used to have one, established at Bretton-Woods after WW2, but it turned out that made it too difficult to make money out of thin air so they slowly abandoned it.
Oldpinkman
03-11-2016, 10:45
Score one for the good guys
T May is appealing the decision that parliament have to vote on invoking article 50.
It's a long road and we haven't even started on it until/if Art 50 happens.
My view is that the vote to "take back control" immediately led to our credit rating being downgraded, and that this might drop further. Whatever your view on these agencies, they have control over our rating, and thus control over what it costs our government to borrow money, and therefore control over our budget.
Govt inspired as well as "those institutions" so mz May can say, well i tried, lol.
Are you suggesting that the judiciary is not independent from government, and impartial?
walpurgis
03-11-2016, 11:00
May will get her way. The government always does in the end. A word in the right person's ear, a suggestion of a knighthood here and there, lucrative 'token' directorships. We know the score.
I think Grant is suggesting that the government is performing a pantomime so that if Brexit is ultimately blocked by the judiciary and Parlianment, they can say they did all they could to respect the wishes of the voters, whilst secretly being relieved that it turned out not to be possible. That may (ho ho) be true.
May will get her way. The government always does in the end. A word in the right person's ear, a suggestion of a knighthood here and there, lucrative 'token' directorships. We know the score.
I think you underestimate the supreme court justices, and do them a great disservice.
My view is that the vote to "take back control" immediately led to our credit rating being downgraded, and that this might drop further. Whatever your view on these agencies, they have control over our rating, and thus control over what it costs our government to borrow money, and therefore control over our budget.
Are you suggesting that the judiciary is not independent from government, and impartial?
Nothing is totally impartial. NOTHING! There is always someone, somewhere that can put sufficient pressure on if needed.
It is a bad old world out there in politics and finance.
Then there is the civil service... they run the country anyway, and if they dont like it, their tentacles extend farther than you may think
Nothing is totally impartial. NOTHING! There is always someone, somewhere that can put sufficient pressure on if needed.
It is a bad old world out there in politics and finance.
Law is not politics and finance. It's not easy to make it onto the supreme court bench. Attacking the impartiality of judges is what Donald Trump does when he doesn't get the ruling he wants. It's a dangerous road.
Some lighter commentary on it all.
http://newsthump.com/2016/10/18/man-who-demanded-sovereignty-of-parliament-outraged-by-sovereignty-of-parliament/
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
walpurgis
03-11-2016, 11:28
I trust the judiciary no more than I'd trust anybody else. I've seen how courts can be swayed. Taking the side of officialdom regardless of truths.
But they are experts and an expert can never be bribed, bullied, coerced or blackmailed into doing/saying what you want them to say, not do they ever operate their own agenda even if it is ideologically motivated.
Although I don't think for one second that the government will attempt to put any pressure on them in this situation. Too touchy, too much close scrutiny.
walpurgis
03-11-2016, 11:41
More likely pressure on litigants.
The housebreakin here and there. Reports of child abuse. Strange noises on the phone. Police stopping cars regularly. Assaults by strangers. Kids being followed. Bills from businesses you've never heard of. Demotions and sackings from work. Computers hacked. Council inspectors visiting and saying your house breaches local regs. And so on.
But they are experts and an expert can never be bribed, bullied, coerced or blackmailed into doing/saying what you want them to say, not do they ever operate their own agenda even if it is ideologically motivated.
Your repetition of the word "experts" is clearly intended as derogatory and I find it rather sad, in more than one sense of the word.
Talking about judges like that is like Donald Trump talking about voter fraud.
Have a think about what being a judge entails. Imagine a long child murder trial for example, or even here, imagine the enormous pressure of all the political and media attention on your judgement, and the sharp minds on all sides who will be examining your judgement.
I know it is very very clever to have an automatic distrust of anyone who has risen to a certain level in their profession, and society, and to say that they are ERGO corrupted and corruptible because of the very position they have managed to achieve. But sometimes it is better to give respect to people where it has been rightfully earned. In this way
you may earn some respect yourself.
R
I believe it is foolish to place unquestioning trust in any authority. I am not saying that all judges (or experts) are corrupt all the time, but they are only people and are subject to the same pressures and personal biases that we all are.
Indeed. Its not possible to be entirely neutral in everything, and there are agencies etc who specialise in keeping it that way.
Its interesting that the brexiteers dont seem overly bothered by this. May cleverly got in first ...that was smart. And surprisingly quick as its just been announced
May cleverly got in first ...that was smart.
I'm not sure what you mean?
I am not saying that all judges (or experts) are corrupt all the time, but they are only people and are subject to the same pressures and personal biases that we all are.
Do you have any idea of the selection process for a high court judge? Or a supreme court judge? Can you imagine a system that might be designed to weed out those who might be subject to the same pressures and personal biases of your average suburban pub-genius?
You're not saying they are corrupt all the time? How very magnanimous of you! You have judged the judges! Well done!
Excuse me whilst I look for my head, which I seem to have laughed off!
[emoji61] [emoji27] [emoji1] [emoji206] [emoji107] [emoji89] [emoji56] [emoji12]
Certainly not. In fact i never really said they had been swayed by anyone, but they could have been. Also their own feeling may or may not have played a part. Anyone who thinks these things dont happen on occasion are missing something, thats all. Its part of the system, and overall you never beat the system. Tbh I wouldnt really want it any other way.. checks and balances.
walpurgis
03-11-2016, 12:52
High court judges being discredited or disgraced is not unheard of.
Arkless Electronics
03-11-2016, 13:19
Oh happy day! frabjous joy!
I believe it is foolish to place unquestioning trust in any authority. I am not saying that all judges (or experts) are corrupt all the time, but they are only people and are subject to the same pressures and personal biases that we all are.
Well, I trust an aeroplane pilot to know how to fly a plane, and to know what all the lights on the dashboard mean. I trust my doctor to diagnose what's wrong with me, and/or to refer me to a more specialised expert if need be. I wouldn't say I have 'unquestioning' trust in them, exactly, but they are far more likely to be doing the right thing than not, so it's easier to work on that assumption than to worry endlessly whether, for example, my doctor is in the pay of Big Pharma.
As far as judges are concerned, they have lengthy legal training and are there to interpret the law. Their rulings are also subject to appeal. I'm not sure where else we should take contentious legal issues to; a panel of blokes on the internet, maybe?
High court judges being discredited or disgraced is not unheard of.
But not all of them at the same time.
As far as judges are concerned, they have lengthy legal training and are there to interpret the law. Their rulings are also subject to appeal. I'm not sure where else we should take contentious legal issues to; a panel of blokes on the internet, maybe?
Once we get a ruling from the Supreme Court there is no appeal, which is why it is rather difficult to become a supreme court judge.
I'm not sure what you mean?
Do you have any idea of the selection process for a high court judge? Or a supreme court judge? Can you imagine a system that might be designed to weed out those who might be subject to the same pressures and personal biases of your average suburban pub-genius?
You're not saying they are corrupt all the time? How very magnanimous of you! You have judged the judges! Well done!
Excuse me whilst I look for my head, which I seem to have laughed off!
[emoji61] [emoji27] [emoji1] [emoji206] [emoji107] [emoji89] [emoji56] [emoji12]
I think you are assuming that things happen the way they are supposed to happen, rather than how they actually happen in reality. How do you know that those in charge of the selection process are not corrupt or working from an agenda? Some of the time they will be. Do you never read Private Eye?
Oldpinkman
03-11-2016, 15:24
The lovely thing about the internet is there is a nearly endless supply of conspiracy theorists. Personally I know judges are impartial because they all come from Betelgeuse - which, like the planet Vulcan has no emotion, has no capacity for corruption
High court judges being discredited or disgraced is not unheard of.
I like your Avatar :)
walpurgis
03-11-2016, 16:20
I trust an aeroplane pilot to know how to fly a plane, and to know what all the lights on the dashboard mean. I trust my doctor to diagnose what's wrong with me, and/or to refer me to a more specialised expert if need be. I wouldn't say I have 'unquestioning' trust in them, exactly, but they are far more likely to be doing the right thing than not, so it's easier to work on that assumption than to worry endlessly whether, for example, my doctor is in the pay of Big Pharma.
And hopefully, you won't be dealing with somebody like Andreas Lubitz or Harold Shipman.
walpurgis
03-11-2016, 16:21
I like your Avatar :)
I'd better change it then! :D
How do you know that those in charge of the selection process are not corrupt or working from an agenda?
I know someone who is on the Judicial Appointments Commission.
It is certain that in your very clever mind your suspicions (based on your gut feeling, and possibly many claimed hours of self-study) will carry more weight than my certain knowledge of some of the people whom you accuse so blithely. It doesn't really make any difference, does it?
Is it not hard to only be capable of seeing misery and corruption behind everything? What great disappointment befell you in your life to make you see the world so?
It appears it was not a high court ruling, but from the divisional court.
Because it was of such constitutional importance, the judges sitting were The Lord Chief Justice, The Master of the Rolls, and Judge Swales.
Similarly, when it goes before the Supreme Court next month it will be heard by all eleven members of the court, which is rare (if not unprecedented).
>>>>>
If anyone is interested in the actual judgement today here it is!
(warning: it is long and rather complicated)
THE JUDGEMENT (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf)
I know someone who is on the Judicial Appointments Commission.
It is certain that in your very clever mind your suspicions (based on your gut feeling, and possibly many claimed hours of self-study) will carry more weight than my certain knowledge of some of the people whom you accuse so blithely. It doesn't really make any difference, does it?
Is it not hard to only be capable of seeing misery and corruption behind everything? What great disappointment befell you in your life to make you see the world so?
It appears it was not a high court ruling, but from the divisional court.
Because it was of such constitutional importance, the judges sitting were The Lord Chief Justice, The Master of the Rolls, and Judge Swales.
Similarly, when it goes before the Supreme Court next month it will be heard by all eleven members of the court, which is rare (if not unprecedented).
>>>>>
If anyone is interested in the actual judgement today here it is!
(warning: it is long and rather complicated)
THE JUDGEMENT (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf)
Show me where I have specifically accused anyone of anything. Otherwise the first half of your post makes no sense whatsoever.
Show me where I have specifically accused anyone of anything.
Really? Well, there is nothing specific here, but the past three pages have had a lot of grumboing about the process being corrupt and you weighed in with your experts rhetoric &c. Here you are:
But they are experts and an expert can never be bribed, bullied, coerced or blackmailed into doing/saying what you want them to say, not do they ever operate their own agenda even if it is ideologically motivated.
Sarcastic rhetoric.
I am not saying that all judges (or experts) are corrupt all the time, but they are only people and are subject to the same pressures and personal biases that we all are.
So you are saying that some of them are corrupt sometimes.
How do you know that those in charge of the selection process are not corrupt or working from an agenda? Some of the time they will be.
Some of the people on the JAC are sometimes corrupt or working from an agenda.
Now of course you can argue the point but as the last couple of pages has been about the judgement today and this is the context of what we are discussing, then surely this is intended to colour our opinion on the validity of the judicial process?
Rather than get us all bogged down in how cleverly you can dodge the bullets, you would do better to read the judgement and then make comments on whether you think it is a political stitch up.
The digested read is that it is about our Parliamentary sovereignty.
Arkless Electronics
03-11-2016, 19:00
I'm just hoping this kills brexit for good! Let the MP's have a vote on it and unless they are all total hypocrites (what? our honest decent MP's? :lol:) brexit should be kicked into the long grass for good!!:) The only pro brexit party was UKIP and they only have 1 MP :D
Yes, I never said any of the things you accused me of did I? You would be better to argue with what I say than with what you imagine I say.
I have also not put forward the theory that the judicial decision re Brexit was a stitch up. In fact I have already posted that I think that highly unlikely.
I am confused as to your opinion of the corruptibility of the judiciary. Are you suggesting that they are de-facto incorruptible. Or do you think that it is perfectly possible for them to be corrupted, even if none are at the present time? That is to say, it can never be entirely discounted. If it is the latter then we are in agreement.
Yes, I never said any of the things you accused me of did I? You would be better to argue with what I say than with what you imagine I say.
I have also not put forward the theory that the judicial decision re Brexit was a stitch up. In fact I have already posted that I think that highly unlikely.
I am confused as to your opinion of the corruptibility of the judiciary. Are you suggesting that they are de-facto incorruptible. Or do you think that it is perfectly possible for them to be corrupted, even if none are at the present time? That is to say, it can never be entirely discounted. If it is the latter then we are in agreement.
It is an incredibly tedious thing to talk about.
I would go so far as to say that it is a perfectly ridiculous thing to talk about in this context, the highest judges in the land involved in a case that will be endlessly dissected in the media.
As I said, we would do better to read the judgement and discuss that than allow ourselves to become distracted with such inanities.
R
CornishPasty
04-11-2016, 15:22
The higher up the chain you go the more dishonesty and corruption one tends to find. Those at the top of the pile usually manage to sniff out the gravy train and make sure they're on it. Those lower down will continue to be fu5ked over and treated with contempt. That's only my opinion but I'm sure many others will be of the same.
The higher up the chain you go the more dishonesty and corruption one tends to find. Those at the top of the pile usually manage to sniff out the gravy train and make sure they're on it. Those lower down will continue to be fu5ked over and treated with contempt. That's only my opinion but I'm sure many others will be of the same.
This doesn't appear to have anything to do with the rest of the thread.
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
walpurgis
04-11-2016, 22:13
Ah. So it doesn't.
Nice to see something a bit different, rather than beating to death a topic that everyone has arguments for, but nobody appears to have answers to.
Ah. So it doesn't.
Nice to see something a bit different, rather than beating to death a topic that everyone has arguments for, but nobody appears to have answers to.
This doesn't appear to have anything to do with the rest of the thread.
[emoji56]
Bringing it back on topic, because I think it is an important topic. Not just the remain/leave issue, but what has arisen since June 23. And this court case and the reaction to it is important, and as it only happened yesterday it's hard to believe that it really has been "beaten to death" although it seems the judges involved are now being threatened with just that.
This article, written by a barrister, is worth reading. Interestingly after the suggestions yesterday that the judges were somehow pressured into their decision it talks about how the reaction in the press today seems to be seeking to do precisely that.
" A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise judicial decisions. Or to draw attention to judges where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground."
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/11/04/liz-truss-is-unfit-for-office-and-should-resign/
Infinitely Baffled
05-11-2016, 09:13
This article, written by a barrister, is worth reading. Interestingly after the suggestions yesterday that the judges were somehow pressured into their decision it talks about how the reaction in the press today seems to be seeking to do precisely that.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/11/04/liz-truss-is-unfit-for-office-and-should-resign/
This is a really good piece of writing. It's short, punchy, and tells you all you need to know about our morally impoverished lightweight political class. The irony is overwhelming: the baying mob who are demanding the Judges' heads on spikes are part of a "Leave" movement that is desperate to restore a Britain they can feel proud of. But the very thing they can, and should, feel most proud of about this country is the integrity and inherent fairness of its constitution - the Separation of Powers, the Rule of Law, the very fact that we have judges who are free and fearless enough to apply the law of Parliament and precedent. Those people would do well to read this article and learn something about what national pride really means. Of course, most of them won't.
IB
This suggests that someone in the EU compliance department has a pretty slick sense of humour..
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/06/european-commission-examine-terms-uk-deal-nissan?CMP=share_btn_fb
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
I would say its none of their business at moment as brexit hasnt happened. if it does happen then, it will be none of their business either
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.